Saturday, 31 October 2009

As for poetry, I am afraid the awful truth, gentlemen, is that women are more likely to write love poems to each other than to a man. A man would be embarrassed to receive one and wouldn't know how to respond, particularly if it was very good. The woman would be perceived to have demeaned herself in taking so much trouble over a mere man, and so it would be better for her if she could pass it off as a doggerel written in jest in an idle moment.

When a man writes poetry for a woman, and means it, it is invariably suffused with heroic metaphors, either that, or written in the tone of a conqueror enslaved.

"Do love letters written by men differ in style, sentiment and sincerity to those written by women?" You betcha. Much as I love Peter Mandelson, I have never felt the urge to express it in poetry.

My love poems to women however are real corkers and will one day become as famous as Sappho's fragments ....

Friday, 30 October 2009

The advent of the contraceptive pill, which became available on the NHS in the late 1960s, ushered in an era of sexual liberation and gave women, for the first time in history, control over their fertility. What it may also have done, according to a report in Scientific American on research done by scientists at Sheffield University, is alter women's taste in men. In a normal menstrual cycle, the scientists found, the hormonal changes occur around the time of ovulation tend to make women more attracted to rugged, manly men - that is to say those who, being genetically dissimilar to them, are more likely to father healthy children. The pill, however, suppresses this process, with the result that women start to prefer more sensitive-looking types (as they do ordinarily, at other times of the month) and those who are genetically more similar to them. Some commentators have speculated that this may in part account for the effeminate appearance of many of today's heart-throbs - Orlando Bloom, for example - which is markedly different to the macho look of film stars of the 1950s, such as Burt Lancaster and John Wayne. A quarter of women in Britain between the ages of 16 and 49 currently use the pill.

And then there is all the oestrogen in the water that gets turned into drinking water, feminism, and feminine traits that are lauded and tolerated at the expense of masculine virtues, turning us all into demented old women who think being offended is enough reason to stop rational debate ....

As a Libertarian, I am all for the legalisation of prostitution. This being so, prostitutes should be allowed to work in brothels for their own safety. Brothel-keeping is however illegal in this country.

The English Collective of Prostitutes http://www.prostitutescollective.net/ are campaigning for brothel-keeping to be legal, yet are strangely welcoming and tolerant of foreign hookers who come here and take the bread out of their mouths, lowering the prices in the same way that foreign competition from plumbers, workmen etc would lower wages for locals.

Perhaps this strangely contradictory position is something that is typically female. If I were an English prostitute I wouldn't be welcoming the competition, but perhaps it is a feminist sisterhood thing.

The government's desire to criminalise men who have transacted with women who turn out to have been "trafficked" may perhaps be some sneaky attempt by the government at immigration control. Trafficked women are after all deported.

It would appear that the Labour government cannot stop itself from interfering in people's lives and this must be fought tooth and nail by those of us who care for our liberties.

It is now illegal for policewomen to mind each other's children. Or to visit schools regularly without having to "prove" you are not a paedophile and pay the "paedophile tax".

First, they infantilise women and assume no rational woman would be a prostitute, and then criminalise anyone who wishes to transact with them.

The truth is that there are many women who prefer not to clean toilets and would rather not work in Primark. They choose prostitution for perfectly rational reasons of getting more money and spending less time doing less work. There is also undeniably an element of skill in this trade.

Compassion must be extended to men who cannot find wives and girlfriends to give sex to them for "free" and who have to buy sex on an ad hoc basis.

These men should not be victimised by the Fundamentalist Feminists who hate both men and women.

These "FundieFemmies" hate women because they wish to stop women from doing what they are best at doing, ie mothering and providing men with physical pleasure.

They make a point of sending mothers out to work and make a point of victimising prostitutes by creating restrictions that would endanger their lives, health and safety, such as criminalising brothel-keeping, which would at least allow them to work in safer conditions than in a kerb-crawling punter's car, his hotel room or any premises controlled by him.

What they should be doing is sanctify marriage again and discourage single mummery, but these FundieFemmies are immovable on the right of women to be as promiscuous as men, for their toxic ideological reasons.

Doesn't the Labour government know that they could tax the earnings of both prostitutes and brothel-keepers to assist in the National Debt, Balance of Payments and Tourism?

We know that many non-white men prefer blondes. To be a better-paid prostitute one would learn a variety of foreign languages and cultivate more feminine graces, which can only be a good thing. One cannot help but be reminded of famous and powerful courtesans such as Madame de Pompadour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_de_Pompadour.

Indeed, if one were to agree with the position that all women are prostitutes (because all men are punters), we would have a healthier and more compassionate attitude towards prostitution, and usher in a new Golden Age of Inter-Gender Entente, where family values reign, our children are biddable and a credit to their undivorced and unseparated biological parents.Why are the British allowing the likes of the discredited Harriet Harman of a discredited government to interfere and ruin the lives of yet more men and women?

Because they (and we) are all sad and mad and bad, irrational, hypocritical, cowardly and dishonest, that's why.

A new trend is emerging among single parents to advertise on the internet in order to set up flat shares with each other. The appeal of such an arrangement is to offer both single parent and child an expanded family set up in better accommodation than they would be able to afford otherwise. But economic advantage aside, is it a good idea? To discuss, Jenni is joined by Maria Roberts, author of ‘Single Mother on the Verge’ who is a supporter of such schemes and by psychologist Dr. Richard Woolfson.

‘Single Mother On The Verge’ by Maria Roberts is published by PenguinISBN -10: 0141037776

Another toxic destructive idea dreamt up by these depraved single mothers who are now increasing in number exponentially? Surely, but surely, it is a recipe for paedophilia, under aged sex, unwanted teenage pregnancy, child abuse and childhood traumas? It will all go wrong and then they will want taxpayers' money to bail them out, you mark my words.

When we are convulsing in our death throes through an excess of STDs and national dementia, feeble-minded through generations of bastardy and free for all sex, then the Muslims will take over.

Why are women so stupid? And why are British men so feeble-minded as to allow this sort of rot to go unchallenged?

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Are men naturally non-interventionists and women naturally censorious and interfering?

Is our nanny state the result of feminine values predominating and a national manifestation of feminine neurosis and irrationality?

Is Western civilisation doomed if it does not address this problem? Surely it must pull itself back into masculine preoccupations of analysis and rational problem-solving as opposed to feminine displacement activity?

History is replete with patriarchies while matriarchies are unheard of. Is it because matriarchies are by definition incapable of practising anything as civilised as reading and writing, because its natural state is simply breeding, emotionalism and barbarism?

The refusal to address the problem of single mummery is the chief reason why we have ever-declining educational standards which successive governments are too frightened to address for fear of giving offence to the illegitimate and the mothers of the illegitimate, and of course the female-dominated teaching profession.

Those who are illegitimate will have fewer inhibitions about having illegitimate children and so the rot slides down its slippery slope, and we with it.

46% of babies are now born out of wedlock.

70% of our prison population were singly-parented.

And still the liberal establishment will not speak out against single mummery.

Do such incompetents, cowards and hypocrites deserve to rule over those they regularly denounce as extremist, such as the BNP and the Muslims?

Feminine neurosis does not affect women alone. There are many emasculated liberal men who subscribe to all the irrational values of feminism and are permanently frightened of giving offence. Many of them are prominent male politicians. Some of them even support the paedophile tax (of paying £64 to the government to "prove" you are not a paedophile), even as they know that it would do nothing to protect children. These men are either eunuchs or drones.

Is it not time they were sent on their way, in favour of courageous, principled rational and masculine leadership or at least by women capable of thinking in these terms?

Good husbandry is a after all male concept. It means delegating that which needs delegating while you get on with more important matters. Women need to be kept properly occupied or they will simply interfere and impose their irrational emotionalism on everything and everyone else, to the detriment of society and the civilisation that that society is part of.

Why has gay bashing risen by 20% in London, ie in the Tower Hamlets - a predominantly Muslim area?

Is it because the Muslims (whose Koran informs them that homosexual acts are sinful) are beating up gays more than any other group?

Is it anything to do with the increasingly militancy of homosexuals and how they are perceived to be a sort of gay mafia taking over the country and given special privileges, and the "gayer than Labour" message the Tories are trying to give?

When two groups protected by PC legislation are in conflict with each other, who wins?

Hate Crime (ie assaulting or killing someone because you hate them) attracts a higher penalty than if you did not particularly hate them.

Why on earth would you attack or kill someone if you did not hate them?

So, attacking a homosexual, disabled person or someone on religious or racial grounds, would attract a higher penalty than if you attacked a member of the BNP, would it?

How does this square with the principle of equality before the law?

It's official then, is it, that here in the UK there is no equality before the law?

There is a very simple Libertarian solution to this: repeal all hate crime, which is but thoughtcrime. If you punish properly those who kill and attack others, then there would be no problem, would it?

It is just possible that our legislators have got their knickers in a twist and have had their knickers in a twist for a very long time.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

I would rather commit infanticide and put my hands up for it, just like the attention-seeking euthanasing travellers to Switzerland do, than

1) have an abortion2) bring up a mentally handicapped child3) inflict my mentally handicapped child on the taxpayer

Would my proposed course of action not make sense if you were one of those older mothers who may not have the chance to conceive again?

The advantage of my recommended course of action are:

1) I could enjoy my pregnancy.

2) I wouldn't be living with the guilt of perhaps needlessly aborting a child that turns out to be healthy after all.

3) I can always deal with the mentally handicapped baby discreetly after it is born.

I have been careful to explain my moral reasoning in case there is anyone reading this who could find herself in this position or is already in this position.

Don't have the test and don't have the abortion. Deal with it discreetly yourself later.

This is just a piece of advice for any of you older mothers that you won't have read anywhere else. You know it makes sense, morally, economically, legally and logistically.

Legally, you are unlikely to be shopped by your husband (who will be secretly relieved anyway) or family members and friends, who will understand, particularly if you do it secretly and contain the urge to discuss it with anyone at all.

You won't be subjected to an invasive medical procedure and will save precious NHS resources.

Do not be like my schoolfriend who had her one and only mentally handicapped child, ruined her marriage and now has no husband and no normal child to enquire after her health and find a good home for her in her dotage.

The answer to this problem is simple. Create a situation where women see it as an advantage to have children younger, and in wedlock too.

This is of course beyond the wit of the liberal establishment.

They of course prefer to wring their hands at the increase of single mummery, family breakdown, rising crime, ever-lowering standards of education and behaviour, make us pay paedophile and green taxes and rejecting any solution that might work because it might seem judgemental, intolerant and insufficiently compassionate.

Perhaps it is time they were sent on their way after so many decades in power.

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

I strongly oppose clauses on prostitution in the Policing and Crime Bill 2009 which would: make it easier for the police to arrest women for “loitering and soliciting”; extend “closure orders” against sex workers’ premises; introduce compulsory “rehabilitation” of sex workers under threat of imprisonment; arrest presumed kerb-crawlers on a first offence; introduce a strict liability offence of “paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force” (i.e. no need to show knowledge or recklessness); extend powers to search, seize and retain property under Proceeds of Crime legislation.

If these proposals become law, they will increase criminalisation and imprisonment, particularly of women, and push prostitution further underground, putting sex workers more at risk of violence. These measures should be withdrawn. I urge you to speak and vote against them when they come to the Lords.

"The strange, lonely and troubling death of Stephen Gately": why can't Jan Moir say this without being denounced? Are gays God now? Is being unflattering about a dead gay man and his partner who was enjoying himself with another, tantamount to blasphemy in our age of liberal extremism?

If a straight man was enjoying himself with another woman while his wife lay dead in the bedroom, we would be allowed to speculate on the morals of the deceased and his wife, would we not?

If a straight woman was enjoying himself with another man while her husband lay dead in the bedroom, we would be allowed to speculate on the morals of the deceased her husband, would we not?

• They are not as competitively minded about their jobs as men in older generations.• They are fashion conscious and eat sparingly so they can stay thin and fit into skintight clothes.• They are chummy with their moms and often go shopping together.• They are not interested in dating girls, having relationships, or even having sex (choosing from a plethora of "self-help" toys instead).• They are very tight with their money and often carry several retailers' "point cards" around, declaring that those who don't pinch pennies are stupid.

Ushikubo has even gone so far as giving these types a new label: ojo-man (ladylike men).

"Many of the boys I've met told me they cannot go out of their house if their hair doesn't look perfect," she said. "They have also told me that their self-esteem goes up when their nails look nice."

Ushikubo estimates that 60 percent of today's men aged 20-34 fall somewhat into the soshokukei category. Sounds exaggerated? Of the 500 single men in their 20s and 30s surveyed in March by Lifenet Seimei Life Insurance Co., 378 — or 75.6 percent — replied that they regarded themselves more as herbivores than nikushokukei (carnivores).

What is most troubling to a growing legion of young women, however, is that soshokukei men are also extremely noncommittal in their relationships with the opposite sex. Many are not interested in the act of koku-ru (confessing their love to girls), out of fear that doing so would make them psychologically disadvantaged, Ushikubo says. Furthermore, being cynical about the generation above them, in which nearly half of marriages are shotgun weddings, young people — and young men in particular — are very wary of making lifelong commitments "by accident," according to Ushikubo.

Likewise, they tend to have little interest in reproducing, often even being too physically tired to have sex, let alone start a family, according to Ushikubo. The young men's tendency not to have real sex — apparently counterbalanced by their growing reliance on Internet porn sites and "do-it-yourself" gadgets — is a big headache for the nation's condom makers, whose shipments have been falling since 1999, the very year that marks the beginning of the Internet revolution.

Meanwhile, a few other phenomena are underscoring the trend for some men to defy their sexual stereotypes. A 2007 survey by a major toilet-seat maker found that half of Japanese men sit on the toilet to urinate, while bras designed for men have been selling briskly since they hit the market last November.

But are women becoming like men as well? Are they more manly than they used to be?

He attributes the soshokukei trend to the postwar peace Japan has enjoyed for the last six decades.

"The most 'manly' men, I think, are soldiers on the battlefields," Morioka said. "But the pressures for men to act manly have gradually faded over the last six decades. As a result, the (per capita) rate of murders committed by men in their 20s in Japan is now the lowest in the world.

"Behind all this is the fading of social values that have driven men into violent acts. Men don't have to be violent any more, and that's why they can be herbivorous."

... most Japanese men are "searching for heterosexual love while turning unisex."

I fear that this is a problem of prolonged peace, for which the solution is obvious.

Doncha hate the way the Tories are sucking up to gay and lesbian community???"!!!

As well as the idiotic broccoli logo we now have this stupid rainbow which is intended to appeal to the kiddywinx we have all been dumbed down to, I suppose.

If I were Tory Party leader I would offer to simultaneously promise to abolish Inheritance Tax and the civil partnership. They should be tolerated but are not the equal of couples who enter a supposedly life-long commitment to bring up the next generation.

The Koran deals very wisely with the question of tolerance without conferring equality.

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

To address the problem of spousal exploitation, I would pass a law requiring all couples to sign up a marriage contract before a marriage is legally recognised by law. For any contract to be valid, a mediator or an odd number of mediators would have to be appointed by the couple. This is to enable one of them to complain about the unreasonable behaviour of the other, before getting to the end of their tether and resorting to knifing their husbands.

The wife can then ring her mediator and say: "He insists on buggering me every time we have sex. I don't enjoy it and I have had enough. Nowhere does it say in our marriage contract that a conjugal obligation exists on my part to submit to this disgusting and perverted practice. Could you have a word with him, please?"